You want to be a Republican? Then sign this.....

are you really this stupid......?
it's because you don't see any thing wrong with their actions, while non delusional people do, is by definition rationalizing!

rationalization or rationalisation (also known as making excuses[1]) is a defense mechanism in which controversial behaviors or feelings are justified and explained in a seemingly rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and superior – by plausible means.[2] It is also an informal fallacy of reasoning.[3]

Again, it would be rationalizing if YOU were doing it. I see nothing wrong in a political party asking people wanting to run under said parties banner to sign a pledge acknowledging the ideals of the party. Its a political party, not the government, not some job, its running for office with the blessings and support of said party mechanism.

You really aren't getting this.
Rationalization encourages irrational or unacceptable behavior, motives, or feelings and often involves ad hoc hypothesizing. This process ranges from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly unconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt). People rationalize for various reasons — sometimes when we think we know ourselves better than we do. Rationalization may differentiate the original deterministic explanation of the behavior or feeling in question.[4][5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(making_excuses)

Now you are just forcing it.
false, just stating fact and you are still rationalizing
By your own links, you condemn yourself to rationalization...in your idiotic attempt to hijack the thread and improperly brand martybegan. You are so convinced of your inability to err that you ignore logic. The question was answered clearly for you many posts back.
false....
 
One county in one State.....

It is indicative of the GOP's holier than thou attitude. The GOP is a Cesspool of Hypocrisy....

LOL, progressives have the same attitude about different things. Its what makes you want to ostracize anyone that doesn't accept things like gay marriage, never mind tolerate it. You idiots are worse because you use government to force people to accept your morals.

All this GOP section is doing is ASKING people to sign a pledge.
I just think how these people fall over themselves to hear and believe the new Obama lie. Then stand behind him. That's the kind of intelligence we are dealing with.
having no real intelligence that's something you cannot know.
What? At least i'm not a blind Obama puppet.
true! but a puppet none the less....different puppeteer....
 
One county in one State.....

It is indicative of the GOP's holier than thou attitude. The GOP is a Cesspool of Hypocrisy....

LOL, progressives have the same attitude about different things. Its what makes you want to ostracize anyone that doesn't accept things like gay marriage, never mind tolerate it. You idiots are worse because you use government to force people to accept your morals.

All this GOP section is doing is ASKING people to sign a pledge.
I just think how these people fall over themselves to hear and believe the new Obama lie. Then stand behind him. That's the kind of intelligence we are dealing with.
having no real intelligence that's something you cannot know.

I'll put my IQ on the line against you any day of the week chippy.

Having an OCD episode over one word like you are having is not intelligence.
it would be fun to watch you fail at that too...
 
Again, it would be rationalizing if YOU were doing it. I see nothing wrong in a political party asking people wanting to run under said parties banner to sign a pledge acknowledging the ideals of the party. Its a political party, not the government, not some job, its running for office with the blessings and support of said party mechanism.

You really aren't getting this.
Rationalization encourages irrational or unacceptable behavior, motives, or feelings and often involves ad hoc hypothesizing. This process ranges from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly unconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt). People rationalize for various reasons — sometimes when we think we know ourselves better than we do. Rationalization may differentiate the original deterministic explanation of the behavior or feeling in question.[4][5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(making_excuses)

Now you are just forcing it.
false, just stating fact and you are still rationalizing
By your own links, you condemn yourself to rationalization...in your idiotic attempt to hijack the thread and improperly brand martybegan. You are so convinced of your inability to err that you ignore logic. The question was answered clearly for you many posts back.
false....

Nice retort there, skippy.
 
It is indicative of the GOP's holier than thou attitude. The GOP is a Cesspool of Hypocrisy....

LOL, progressives have the same attitude about different things. Its what makes you want to ostracize anyone that doesn't accept things like gay marriage, never mind tolerate it. You idiots are worse because you use government to force people to accept your morals.

All this GOP section is doing is ASKING people to sign a pledge.
I just think how these people fall over themselves to hear and believe the new Obama lie. Then stand behind him. That's the kind of intelligence we are dealing with.
having no real intelligence that's something you cannot know.

I'll put my IQ on the line against you any day of the week chippy.

Having an OCD episode over one word like you are having is not intelligence.
it would be fun to watch you fail at that too...

Not going to happen, slappy.
 
Rationalization encourages irrational or unacceptable behavior, motives, or feelings and often involves ad hoc hypothesizing. This process ranges from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly unconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt). People rationalize for various reasons — sometimes when we think we know ourselves better than we do. Rationalization may differentiate the original deterministic explanation of the behavior or feeling in question.[4][5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(making_excuses)

Now you are just forcing it.
false, just stating fact and you are still rationalizing
By your own links, you condemn yourself to rationalization...in your idiotic attempt to hijack the thread and improperly brand martybegan. You are so convinced of your inability to err that you ignore logic. The question was answered clearly for you many posts back.
false....

Nice retort there, skippy.
better than your best ..ever...
 
LOL, progressives have the same attitude about different things. Its what makes you want to ostracize anyone that doesn't accept things like gay marriage, never mind tolerate it. You idiots are worse because you use government to force people to accept your morals.

All this GOP section is doing is ASKING people to sign a pledge.
I just think how these people fall over themselves to hear and believe the new Obama lie. Then stand behind him. That's the kind of intelligence we are dealing with.
having no real intelligence that's something you cannot know.

I'll put my IQ on the line against you any day of the week chippy.

Having an OCD episode over one word like you are having is not intelligence.
it would be fun to watch you fail at that too...

Not going to happen, slappy.
of course not! because being the chicken shit you are ,you'd pull up your skirt and run away...
 
Now you are just forcing it.
false, just stating fact and you are still rationalizing
By your own links, you condemn yourself to rationalization...in your idiotic attempt to hijack the thread and improperly brand martybegan. You are so convinced of your inability to err that you ignore logic. The question was answered clearly for you many posts back.
false....

Nice retort there, skippy.
better than your best ..ever...

Not even close, you oxygen thief.
 
I just think how these people fall over themselves to hear and believe the new Obama lie. Then stand behind him. That's the kind of intelligence we are dealing with.
having no real intelligence that's something you cannot know.

I'll put my IQ on the line against you any day of the week chippy.

Having an OCD episode over one word like you are having is not intelligence.
it would be fun to watch you fail at that too...

Not going to happen, slappy.
of course not! because being the chicken shit you are ,you'd pull up your skirt and run away...

Name a website. I'll take the test and be honest about it. Considering your posting pass you would take it and lie, but I'll know I was honest, and that's good enough for me.
 
SC County GOP If You ve Had Pre-Marital Sex You Can t Be A Republican

WOW, have of the repubs in Congress now would be ineligible!
does sex with your sister count? after all it is the south !
A fan of stereo types i see. Then i guess you would be fine with people saying "all black people eat water melon and fried chicken, they smoke crack and they are terrible fathers", or are you just a hypocrite?.
you do realize that stereotypes are sometimes true...
stating that fact does not make me a hypocrite...
you not understanding the difference, makes you ignorant...
 
false, just stating fact and you are still rationalizing
By your own links, you condemn yourself to rationalization...in your idiotic attempt to hijack the thread and improperly brand martybegan. You are so convinced of your inability to err that you ignore logic. The question was answered clearly for you many posts back.
false....

Nice retort there, skippy.
better than your best ..ever...

Not even close, you oxygen thief.
not even original....
 
having no real intelligence that's something you cannot know.

I'll put my IQ on the line against you any day of the week chippy.

Having an OCD episode over one word like you are having is not intelligence.
it would be fun to watch you fail at that too...

Not going to happen, slappy.
of course not! because being the chicken shit you are ,you'd pull up your skirt and run away...

Name a website. I'll take the test and be honest about it. Considering your posting pass you would take it and lie, but I'll know I was honest, and that's good enough for me.
now that is funny...
 
SC County GOP If You ve Had Pre-Marital Sex You Can t Be A Republican

WOW, have of the repubs in Congress now would be ineligible!
does sex with your sister count? after all it is the south !
A fan of stereo types i see. Then i guess you would be fine with people saying "all black people eat water melon and fried chicken, they smoke crack and they are terrible fathers", or are you just a hypocrite?.
you do realize that stereotypes are sometimes true...
stating that fact does not make me a hypocrite...
you not understanding the difference, makes you ignorant...
So you think black people are terrible fathers then, right?
 
SC County GOP If You ve Had Pre-Marital Sex You Can t Be A Republican

WOW, have of the repubs in Congress now would be ineligible!
does sex with your sister count? after all it is the south !
In new york a blood related father and daughter are gonna get married and are planning to have kids. So them liberals are pretty sick, and your kind paved the way to make this possible.
false! marrying relatives no matter how close the blood relationship is, has been going on since marriage was invented..
I have no doubt that somewhere in your linage there was some sister fucking going on ...
you can pitch a fit now!
Did government sanction it?
irrelevant


History[edit]
According to Professor Robin Fox of Rutgers University, it is likely that 80% of all marriages in history may have been between second cousins or closer.[9] The founding population of Homo sapiens was small, anywhere from 700 to 10,000 individuals. Considering the population dispersal caused by a hunter-gatherer existence, a certain amount of inbreeding would have been inevitable.[10] Proportions of first-cousin marriage in the United States, Europe and other Western countries like Brazil have declined since the 19th century, though even during that period they were not more than 3.63 percent of all unions in Europe.[11][12] In some other world regions, cousin marriage is still strongly favored: in the Middle East, some countries have seen the rate rise over previous generations. One study finds stable rates among Indian Muslims over the past four decades.[13][14][15]

Cousin marriage has often been chosen to keep cultural values intact through many generations and to preserve familial wealth, sometimes via advantages relating to dowry or bride price. Other reasons for cousin marriage may include geographic proximity, tradition, strengthening of family ties, maintenance of family structure, or a closer relationship between the wife and her in-laws. Many such marriages are arranged and facilitated by other extended family members[3][9][16][17][18] (see also pages on arranged marriage in the Indian subcontinent, arranged marriages in Pakistan, and arranged marriages in Japan).

United States[edit]
Cousin marriage was legal in all states before the Civil War.[citation needed] However, according to Kansas anthropology professor Martin Ottenheimer,[19] the main purposes of marriage prohibitions were maintaining the social order and upholding religious morality and safeguarding the creation of fit offspring. Indeed, writers such as Noah Webster (1758–1843) and ministers like Philip Milledoler (1775–1852) and Joshua McIlvaine helped lay the groundwork for such viewpoints well before 1860. This led to a gradual shift in concern from affinal unions, like those between a man and his deceased wife's sister, to consanguineous unions. By the 1870s, Lewis Henry Morgan (1818–1881) was writing about "the advantages of marriages between unrelated persons" and the necessity of avoiding "the evils of consanguine marriage", avoidance of which would "increase the vigor of the stock". To many, Morgan included, cousin marriage, and more specifically parallel-cousin marriage, was a remnant of a more primitive stage of human social organization.[20] Morgan himself had married his maternal uncle's daughter in 1851.[21]

In 1846 Massachusetts Governor George N. Briggs appointed a commission to study "idiots" in the state, and this study implicated cousin marriage as responsible for idiocy. Within the next two decades, numerous reports (e.g., one from the Kentucky Deaf and Dumb Asylum) appeared with similar conclusions: that cousin marriage sometimes resulted in deafness, blindness, and idiocy. Perhaps most important was the report of physician Samuel Merrifield Bemiss for the American Medical Association, which concluded "that multiplication of the same blood by in-and-in marrying does incontestably lead in the aggregate to the physical and mental depravation of the offspring". Despite being contradicted by other studies like those of George Darwin and Alan Huth in England and Robert Newman in New York, the report's conclusions were widely accepted.[22]

These developments led to 13 states and territories passing cousin marriage prohibitions by the 1880s. Though contemporaneous, the eugenics movement did not play much of a direct role in the bans. George Louis Arner in 1908 considered the ban a clumsy and ineffective method of eugenics, which he thought would eventually be replaced by more refined techniques. Ottenheimer considers both the bans and eugenics to be "one of several reactions to the fear that American society might degenerate".[23] During this period, up until the mid-1920s, the number of bans had more than doubled.[7] Since that time, the only three states to add this prohibition have been Kentucky in 1943, Maine in 1985, and Texas in 2005. The NCCUSL unanimously recommended in 1970 that all such laws should be repealed, but no state has dropped its prohibition since the mid-1920s.[1][9][24]

Cousin marriage - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

the answer is yes...
I'm talking about a dad and daughter.
 
SC County GOP If You ve Had Pre-Marital Sex You Can t Be A Republican

WOW, have of the repubs in Congress now would be ineligible!
does sex with your sister count? after all it is the south !
A fan of stereo types i see. Then i guess you would be fine with people saying "all black people eat water melon and fried chicken, they smoke crack and they are terrible fathers", or are you just a hypocrite?.
you do realize that stereotypes are sometimes true...
stating that fact does not make me a hypocrite...
you not understanding the difference, makes you ignorant...
So you think black people are terrible fathers then, right?
some are some aren't same goes for every other "race"
next obvious question...?
 
does sex with your sister count? after all it is the south !
In new york a blood related father and daughter are gonna get married and are planning to have kids. So them liberals are pretty sick, and your kind paved the way to make this possible.
false! marrying relatives no matter how close the blood relationship is, has been going on since marriage was invented..
I have no doubt that somewhere in your linage there was some sister fucking going on ...
you can pitch a fit now!
Did government sanction it?
irrelevant


History[edit]
According to Professor Robin Fox of Rutgers University, it is likely that 80% of all marriages in history may have been between second cousins or closer.[9] The founding population of Homo sapiens was small, anywhere from 700 to 10,000 individuals. Considering the population dispersal caused by a hunter-gatherer existence, a certain amount of inbreeding would have been inevitable.[10] Proportions of first-cousin marriage in the United States, Europe and other Western countries like Brazil have declined since the 19th century, though even during that period they were not more than 3.63 percent of all unions in Europe.[11][12] In some other world regions, cousin marriage is still strongly favored: in the Middle East, some countries have seen the rate rise over previous generations. One study finds stable rates among Indian Muslims over the past four decades.[13][14][15]

Cousin marriage has often been chosen to keep cultural values intact through many generations and to preserve familial wealth, sometimes via advantages relating to dowry or bride price. Other reasons for cousin marriage may include geographic proximity, tradition, strengthening of family ties, maintenance of family structure, or a closer relationship between the wife and her in-laws. Many such marriages are arranged and facilitated by other extended family members[3][9][16][17][18] (see also pages on arranged marriage in the Indian subcontinent, arranged marriages in Pakistan, and arranged marriages in Japan).

United States[edit]
Cousin marriage was legal in all states before the Civil War.[citation needed] However, according to Kansas anthropology professor Martin Ottenheimer,[19] the main purposes of marriage prohibitions were maintaining the social order and upholding religious morality and safeguarding the creation of fit offspring. Indeed, writers such as Noah Webster (1758–1843) and ministers like Philip Milledoler (1775–1852) and Joshua McIlvaine helped lay the groundwork for such viewpoints well before 1860. This led to a gradual shift in concern from affinal unions, like those between a man and his deceased wife's sister, to consanguineous unions. By the 1870s, Lewis Henry Morgan (1818–1881) was writing about "the advantages of marriages between unrelated persons" and the necessity of avoiding "the evils of consanguine marriage", avoidance of which would "increase the vigor of the stock". To many, Morgan included, cousin marriage, and more specifically parallel-cousin marriage, was a remnant of a more primitive stage of human social organization.[20] Morgan himself had married his maternal uncle's daughter in 1851.[21]

In 1846 Massachusetts Governor George N. Briggs appointed a commission to study "idiots" in the state, and this study implicated cousin marriage as responsible for idiocy. Within the next two decades, numerous reports (e.g., one from the Kentucky Deaf and Dumb Asylum) appeared with similar conclusions: that cousin marriage sometimes resulted in deafness, blindness, and idiocy. Perhaps most important was the report of physician Samuel Merrifield Bemiss for the American Medical Association, which concluded "that multiplication of the same blood by in-and-in marrying does incontestably lead in the aggregate to the physical and mental depravation of the offspring". Despite being contradicted by other studies like those of George Darwin and Alan Huth in England and Robert Newman in New York, the report's conclusions were widely accepted.[22]

These developments led to 13 states and territories passing cousin marriage prohibitions by the 1880s. Though contemporaneous, the eugenics movement did not play much of a direct role in the bans. George Louis Arner in 1908 considered the ban a clumsy and ineffective method of eugenics, which he thought would eventually be replaced by more refined techniques. Ottenheimer considers both the bans and eugenics to be "one of several reactions to the fear that American society might degenerate".[23] During this period, up until the mid-1920s, the number of bans had more than doubled.[7] Since that time, the only three states to add this prohibition have been Kentucky in 1943, Maine in 1985, and Texas in 2005. The NCCUSL unanimously recommended in 1970 that all such laws should be repealed, but no state has dropped its prohibition since the mid-1920s.[1][9][24]

Cousin marriage - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

the answer is yes...
I'm talking about a dad and daughter.
still irrelevant...
Fathers Marry Daughters In Group Church Rituals

Daughters Marry Fathers
in right wing rituals of sexual control

I am not a frequent reader of Glamour magazine. I doubt that I have read more than two or three articles in Glamour before now, and those articles were read in places like hospital waiting rooms where I didn't have many other choices. Today, however, I have read an article from Glamour by choice, and I recommend that you have a look at it too. It's titled Would You Pledge Your Virginity to Your Father?, and it explores the growing phenomenon of father-daughter marriages in the United States.

In these ceremonies, sponsored by right-wing Christian churches, fathers place rings on their daughters' fingers after the daughters pledge their sexual purity to their fathers. Often, the fathers receive a ring too. These vows and exchanges of rings take place in large group ceremonies, which fathers and daughters attend as couples without the girls' mothers present. The fathers take the girls out to dinner on what are called "dates", during which the fathers dance with their daughters wearing the kind of formal attire typical of a wedding. Then, the father-daughter couples listen to a priest, who leads the ceremonies. Vows are exchanged, and then the couples return home, the fathers carrying their daughters' signed vows of sexual purity.

To be fair, the people who participate in these group rituals don't refer to what they're doing as a wedding ceremony. In effect, however, a marriage contract is what these fathers and daughters have entered into. The daughters are wedded to their fathers in a pact of sexual fidelity. Some of these daughters pledge not even to kiss anyone until they find a husband of their own. The time they spend with their fathers forms the basis of the only close relationship the girls have with any male.

I have a daughter, and she is precious to me. She's only two years old, but I can already feel the protective instincts a father feels toward a daughter. I can understand the feelings that motivate fathers to sit on the front porch, waiting for their daughters to arrive back home safely.

I also understand, however, that there are going to be limits to my powers of protection, and that there ought to be. I may want to keep my daughter safe, but I don't want to treat her like a piece of property. She's a human being, with her own interests. She's precious to me, but she doesn't belong to me.

I also realize that my daughter's sexuality isn't something that I possess until I give it away to some other man. Sex is not what the father-daughter relationship is about. I don't want my daughter to pledge to be sexually faithful to me. That's not how I want her to think of me.

I want my daughter to be sexually faithful to herself. My daughter will own her own sexuality, as it develops. I hope she'll explore it with wisdom, but I think it's reasonable to expect that, at times, she'll make mistakes with it. Most people do.

I also don't think that I'll be able to control my daughter by pressuring her to take pledges dedicated to me. Promises are easily made by teenagers, and are easily broken. I'd just as soon not teach my daughter to make promises that she won't be able to keep.


Follow the action at at Irregular Times News on Sex
 
SC County GOP If You ve Had Pre-Marital Sex You Can t Be A Republican

WOW, have of the repubs in Congress now would be ineligible!
does sex with your sister count? after all it is the south !
A fan of stereo types i see. Then i guess you would be fine with people saying "all black people eat water melon and fried chicken, they smoke crack and they are terrible fathers", or are you just a hypocrite?.
you do realize that stereotypes are sometimes true...
stating that fact does not make me a hypocrite...
you not understanding the difference, makes you ignorant...
So you think black people are terrible fathers then, right?
some are some aren't same goes for every other "race"
next obvious question...?
No, you implied that stereo types exist for a reason. There isn't a "white men are bad fathers" stereotype. That stereotype belongs exclusively to black men. So if you believe in stereotypes, which you claimed you did when it came to "southerners", then you must also believe that black men are bad fathers You don't get to pick and choose, unless you want to be a piece of shit hypocrite.
 
does sex with your sister count? after all it is the south !
A fan of stereo types i see. Then i guess you would be fine with people saying "all black people eat water melon and fried chicken, they smoke crack and they are terrible fathers", or are you just a hypocrite?.
you do realize that stereotypes are sometimes true...
stating that fact does not make me a hypocrite...
you not understanding the difference, makes you ignorant...
So you think black people are terrible fathers then, right?
some are some aren't same goes for every other "race"
next obvious question...?
No, you implied that stereo types exist for a reason. There isn't a "white men are bad fathers" stereotype. That stereotype belongs exclusively to black men. So if you believe in stereotypes, which you claimed you did when it came to "southerners", then you must also believe that black men are bad fathers You don't get to pick and choose, unless you want to be a piece of shit hypocrite.
He's pretty much content with being a blithering idiot.
 
In new york a blood related father and daughter are gonna get married and are planning to have kids. So them liberals are pretty sick, and your kind paved the way to make this possible.
false! marrying relatives no matter how close the blood relationship is, has been going on since marriage was invented..
I have no doubt that somewhere in your linage there was some sister fucking going on ...
you can pitch a fit now!
Did government sanction it?
irrelevant


History[edit]
According to Professor Robin Fox of Rutgers University, it is likely that 80% of all marriages in history may have been between second cousins or closer.[9] The founding population of Homo sapiens was small, anywhere from 700 to 10,000 individuals. Considering the population dispersal caused by a hunter-gatherer existence, a certain amount of inbreeding would have been inevitable.[10] Proportions of first-cousin marriage in the United States, Europe and other Western countries like Brazil have declined since the 19th century, though even during that period they were not more than 3.63 percent of all unions in Europe.[11][12] In some other world regions, cousin marriage is still strongly favored: in the Middle East, some countries have seen the rate rise over previous generations. One study finds stable rates among Indian Muslims over the past four decades.[13][14][15]

Cousin marriage has often been chosen to keep cultural values intact through many generations and to preserve familial wealth, sometimes via advantages relating to dowry or bride price. Other reasons for cousin marriage may include geographic proximity, tradition, strengthening of family ties, maintenance of family structure, or a closer relationship between the wife and her in-laws. Many such marriages are arranged and facilitated by other extended family members[3][9][16][17][18] (see also pages on arranged marriage in the Indian subcontinent, arranged marriages in Pakistan, and arranged marriages in Japan).

United States[edit]
Cousin marriage was legal in all states before the Civil War.[citation needed] However, according to Kansas anthropology professor Martin Ottenheimer,[19] the main purposes of marriage prohibitions were maintaining the social order and upholding religious morality and safeguarding the creation of fit offspring. Indeed, writers such as Noah Webster (1758–1843) and ministers like Philip Milledoler (1775–1852) and Joshua McIlvaine helped lay the groundwork for such viewpoints well before 1860. This led to a gradual shift in concern from affinal unions, like those between a man and his deceased wife's sister, to consanguineous unions. By the 1870s, Lewis Henry Morgan (1818–1881) was writing about "the advantages of marriages between unrelated persons" and the necessity of avoiding "the evils of consanguine marriage", avoidance of which would "increase the vigor of the stock". To many, Morgan included, cousin marriage, and more specifically parallel-cousin marriage, was a remnant of a more primitive stage of human social organization.[20] Morgan himself had married his maternal uncle's daughter in 1851.[21]

In 1846 Massachusetts Governor George N. Briggs appointed a commission to study "idiots" in the state, and this study implicated cousin marriage as responsible for idiocy. Within the next two decades, numerous reports (e.g., one from the Kentucky Deaf and Dumb Asylum) appeared with similar conclusions: that cousin marriage sometimes resulted in deafness, blindness, and idiocy. Perhaps most important was the report of physician Samuel Merrifield Bemiss for the American Medical Association, which concluded "that multiplication of the same blood by in-and-in marrying does incontestably lead in the aggregate to the physical and mental depravation of the offspring". Despite being contradicted by other studies like those of George Darwin and Alan Huth in England and Robert Newman in New York, the report's conclusions were widely accepted.[22]

These developments led to 13 states and territories passing cousin marriage prohibitions by the 1880s. Though contemporaneous, the eugenics movement did not play much of a direct role in the bans. George Louis Arner in 1908 considered the ban a clumsy and ineffective method of eugenics, which he thought would eventually be replaced by more refined techniques. Ottenheimer considers both the bans and eugenics to be "one of several reactions to the fear that American society might degenerate".[23] During this period, up until the mid-1920s, the number of bans had more than doubled.[7] Since that time, the only three states to add this prohibition have been Kentucky in 1943, Maine in 1985, and Texas in 2005. The NCCUSL unanimously recommended in 1970 that all such laws should be repealed, but no state has dropped its prohibition since the mid-1920s.[1][9][24]

Cousin marriage - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

the answer is yes...
I'm talking about a dad and daughter.
still irrelevant...
Fathers Marry Daughters In Group Church Rituals

Daughters Marry Fathers
in right wing rituals of sexual control

I am not a frequent reader of Glamour magazine. I doubt that I have read more than two or three articles in Glamour before now, and those articles were read in places like hospital waiting rooms where I didn't have many other choices. Today, however, I have read an article from Glamour by choice, and I recommend that you have a look at it too. It's titled Would You Pledge Your Virginity to Your Father?, and it explores the growing phenomenon of father-daughter marriages in the United States.

In these ceremonies, sponsored by right-wing Christian churches, fathers place rings on their daughters' fingers after the daughters pledge their sexual purity to their fathers. Often, the fathers receive a ring too. These vows and exchanges of rings take place in large group ceremonies, which fathers and daughters attend as couples without the girls' mothers present. The fathers take the girls out to dinner on what are called "dates", during which the fathers dance with their daughters wearing the kind of formal attire typical of a wedding. Then, the father-daughter couples listen to a priest, who leads the ceremonies. Vows are exchanged, and then the couples return home, the fathers carrying their daughters' signed vows of sexual purity.

To be fair, the people who participate in these group rituals don't refer to what they're doing as a wedding ceremony. In effect, however, a marriage contract is what these fathers and daughters have entered into. The daughters are wedded to their fathers in a pact of sexual fidelity. Some of these daughters pledge not even to kiss anyone until they find a husband of their own. The time they spend with their fathers forms the basis of the only close relationship the girls have with any male.

I have a daughter, and she is precious to me. She's only two years old, but I can already feel the protective instincts a father feels toward a daughter. I can understand the feelings that motivate fathers to sit on the front porch, waiting for their daughters to arrive back home safely.

I also understand, however, that there are going to be limits to my powers of protection, and that there ought to be. I may want to keep my daughter safe, but I don't want to treat her like a piece of property. She's a human being, with her own interests. She's precious to me, but she doesn't belong to me.

I also realize that my daughter's sexuality isn't something that I possess until I give it away to some other man. Sex is not what the father-daughter relationship is about. I don't want my daughter to pledge to be sexually faithful to me. That's not how I want her to think of me.

I want my daughter to be sexually faithful to herself. My daughter will own her own sexuality, as it develops. I hope she'll explore it with wisdom, but I think it's reasonable to expect that, at times, she'll make mistakes with it. Most people do.

I also don't think that I'll be able to control my daughter by pressuring her to take pledges dedicated to me. Promises are easily made by teenagers, and are easily broken. I'd just as soon not teach my daughter to make promises that she won't be able to keep.


Follow the action at at Irregular Times News on Sex
Your not listening, the dad and daughter are getting married and are planning to have kids. So you okay with that?
 

Forum List

Back
Top